Re: [nvo3] enhancing VXLAN/NVGRE vs creating an new encap

Maybe the power struggle should not focus so much on WHAT is delivered but HOW it is developed and delivered. 

A thought offered to me recently from a close friend. 

Dino

> On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:56 PM, David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> The actual examples cited are artifacts of an industry power structure that may not apply in this case, as far as past performance predicting future outcomes....
> 
> D
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas D Nadeau
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:10 AM
> To: Dino Farinacci
> Cc: Russ White; <draft-gross-geneve@tools.ietf.org>; <nvo3@ietf.org>; Lucy yong; Eric Gray
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] enhancing VXLAN/NVGRE vs creating an new encap
> 
> This road is littered with many examples in recent history of new alternatives presenting the dream of "a new encap/protocol will fix everything" such as crldp, PBT and PBB-TE. let's not make this mistake if we can help it...
> 
> Tom 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:48, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Decades of experience tells us what Russ says below. Those who choose to ignore are bound to repeat ...
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:12 AM, "Russ White" <russw@riw.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 3) create a new encapsulation that meets requirements - and find out 
>>>> that the
>>>>   industry doesn't entirely switch over to the new (read untried 
>>>> and
>>> possibly
>>>>   immature) encapsulation, existing deployed alternatives are
>>> documented
>>>> in
>>>>   some (possibly non-standard) way and we incur the costs 
>>>> associated
>>> with
>>>>   living with three alternatives additional encapsulations until 
>>>> such
>>> time (if
>>>> ever)
>>>>   when the DCN industry settles on fewer (possibly as few as one)
>>> choices,
>>>> and
>>>>   we move on.
>>> 
>>> This is, in fact, the most likely result... Vendors would need to 
>>> remove support for the old encaps over time, which isn't going to 
>>> happen so long as someone is actually using them, which means support 
>>> will still be in code, which means new people will start using them, which means...
>>> 
>>> There is also a cost in security when it comes to defining new encap 
>>> types we often don't consider -- it's one more tunnel type that needs 
>>> to be accounted for by middle boxes, network hardening routines, etc. 
>>> For every new encap we create, we also create a lot of work in the 
>>> security world in tracking vulnerabilities, understanding the semantics of the protocol, etc.
>>> 
>>> The right answer, IMHO, is to modify, rather than creating a new encap.
>>> 
>>> :-)
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nvo3 mailing list
>>> nvo3@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> nvo3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3